Can we get an Official clarification on housing Demolish timer (45 or 90?)

[Sicno]

Because it's comparable to denying you of a housing (that I took it first) just as much as me holding onto it and deny you of said housing. Different circumstances, same effect. I wanted my house at any cost, so I camped it and took it for myself ,knowing very well that the other person won't be able to purchase it after I have.

...You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

[WinterLuna]

...You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

You kept going on about people not being sympathetic and sarcastic about the 'friendly community' but you are actually very rude yourself.

[Malevicton]

You kept going on about people not being sympathetic and sarcastic about the 'friendly community' but you are actually very rude yourself.

tbf the person they were replying to was ridiculous. One person having something means one other person can't have the same thing, but why in the world does that matter? They were equating buying a house with taking a house from someone else. It was a pretty silly premise, and a very forced argument.

[WinterLuna]

tbf the person they were replying to was ridiculous. One person having something means one other person can't have the same thing, but why in the world does that matter?

There's ways to share disagreement without being rude though

[Malevicton]

There's ways to share disagreement without being rude though

They were nice the first time. "Stroke even the face of a Buddha three times, and his anger will be roused." They coulda been nicer, but I don't think it's fair to turn that around on them.

We're also wandering in the gray area between rude and blunt. The person really didn't know what they were talking about, so why is it rude to say that they don't know what they're talking about?

[WinterLuna]

They were nice the first time. "Stroke even the face of a Buddha three times, and his anger will be roused." They coulda been nicer, but I don't think it's fair to turn that around on them.

We're also wandering in the gray area between rude and blunt. The person really didn't know what they were talking about, so why is it rude to say that they don't know what they're talking about?

Sure, but for someone who keeps preaching about the friendliness of the community and claiming others have said horrible things, they aren't helping themselves.

[Malicewolf]

Thank you for posting this, because it's exactly my point except I couldn't word it as well.

Your welcome ^^

tbf the person they were replying to was ridiculous. One person having something means one other person can't have the same thing, but why in the world does that matter? They were equating buying a house with taking a house from someone else. It was a pretty silly premise, and a very forced argument.

Well to be fair, half the time someone says something that's an inbetween, it kinda turns out like this

[RiceisNice]

tbf the person they were replying to was ridiculous. One person having something means one other person can't have the same thing, but why in the world does that matter? They were equating buying a house with taking a house from someone else. It was a pretty silly premise, and a very forced argument.

And the same can be said for sinco's reasoning way back. The matter of fact is, they're both not good reasoning but he'll probably still stand by his own while disagreeing with mine.

[Malevicton]

And the same can be said for sinco's reasoning way back. The matter of fact is, they're both not good reasoning but he'll probably still stand by his own while disagreeing with mine.

If you know it's a bad argument, why would you make it...?

[RiceisNice]

If you know it's a bad argument, why would you make it...?

Because the person I'm talking with likes to make their own arguments in the same sense, but holds it against other people when they do the same. In the end though, [B]you /B] are the one that responded to me when the person I was talking to can't even come up with a rebuttal.

tbf the person they were replying to was ridiculous. One person having something means one other person can't have the same thing, but why in the world does that matter? They were equating buying a house with taking a house from someone else. It was a pretty silly premise, and a very forced argument.

In response to this, the matter of fact is that only one person/FC can own the house at a time. The other end's perspective is essentially coming up to the same point; the owner of the house is going to lose it to someone else if they don't take steps to prevent so. It's not even "taking it from someone else" as much as it is putting it back up for sale.